SEQUEL TO RAID

Southland Times, Issue 20772, 13 May 1929, Page 5

SEQUEL TO RAID

HAIRDRESSER FINED

CHARGE OF BOOKMAKING ADMITTED

PENALTY FIXED AT £5O

As a sequel to a spectacular raid on his premises on Thursday, Arthur Edwin Butt, owner of a hairdresser’s and tobbaconist’s shop in Esk street, appeared before Mr W. H. Woodward, S.M., in the Police Court on Saturday morning to answer charges of keeping a common gaming house on his premises and of carrying on the business of a bookmaker.

When the second charge was read, Mr Eustace Russell, who represented accused, objected saying that when the case first appeared before the Court only the first charge had been read, and he had not been advised of any alterations or additions to the charges. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt explained that the second charge had been prepared only that morning and he had not had time to let Mr Russell know-. He was prepared to stand the case over if necessary. After a brief consultation, Mr Russell said that he and his client were prepared to go on with the case, but he did not think that two convictions should be entered for one offerfcc. His client would plead guilty to either charge. The Magistrate explained that he had no intention of making a double-barrelled conviction ami accused thereupon pleaded guilty to the second and major charge. The short facts of the case, since accused pleaded guilty, said Detective-Sergeant Hewitt, were that for the last six or seven years at least, accused had been in business as hairdresser and tobacconist, but had also been carrying on as a bookmaker in a large way for a considerable time. He was no “dollar bet” bookmaker, but was rumoured to the biggest bookmaker in Invercargill. Mr Russell: My client pleads guilty of carrying on the business of a bookmaker on a certain date —May 9 —and (he police should confine themselves to what they can prove.

The Detective-Sergeant continued that he was not going to make any statements that he could not prove if it was necessary. On the date in question, a raid had been carried out on defendant’s premises and he had been found seated at a table on which was a telephone, acceptance cards for the Egmont races, a clock and a number of betting slips for the Forbury Park races (produced). The’total amount of bets registered was approximately £BO, and as the raid took place at about 12 o'clock, threequarters of an hour after the start of the first race at the Park, the Court could form some idea of what the later bets would be. The police took control of the telephone and received several bets. The first came from Wyndham and the speaker described himself as “Cheese.” Later, "Runner” from Riverton phoned £2 on Booster and several other calls were received, many bets being made on Kapuna. Butt’s number was 942, but it would not be found in the book under any name, being one of the kind known as “unlisted” numbers. Accused’s bookmaking business was of such a nature that he could leave his tobacconist’s business and go upstairs to bls private room. On the front page of his betting book were telephone numbers which were believed to be those of Dunedin bookmakers. In conclusion, the detective said that he had been instructed to press for a heavy penalty, following on many heavy fines in the north. Outlining the case for the defence, Mr Russell stressed the fact that the offence concerned only the one day’s transactions, and any rumours of earlier doings had nothing .to do with the case. Moreover, it was not suggested that any bookmaking was done in his hairdressing saloon. Hp himself was in the habit of visiting the saloon every day and he had never heard any bets being taken. Mr Russell went on to quote a Dunedin case in which, he said, almost all the circumstances were the same as the one being heard. The fine imposed had been £25. He submitted that that was a standard the Court, might adopt for a first offender such as the defendant. Dozens of bookmakers appeared before the Court and elected to be tried before a jury which, in nine cases out of ten, refused to convict because public opinion was not generally against bookmakers. The defendant, however, would not adopt that course, but would leave the matter to the Court to decide.

Giving his decision, Mr Woodward said he had been glad to see Mr Bundle’s precedent. Nevertheless the documents showed that a lot of business was transacted by defendant. The books were well thumbed, and there was a card a|rtarcntly of the Bookmakers’ Union. Seeing that defendant had pleaded guilty on the major charge, he would be convicted of carrying on the business of a bookmaker and would be fined £5O and costs.

The first charge was thereupon withdrawn. There were no Court costs.